From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A8935672; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738130282; cv=none; b=DADDwbDAHroQPgSCcKGRlvMabVIRc0Q+kQqrHY/6DwkbevPsuuc8AaoAjjRmw6lbrZOyIabQ2H1yXhclgZ3OiGSN2FcIaGKpEGck9kTWZtCCvgk3/j+QXijTBi+9fARGendU5grWrdkXD6TiMOIgE5Ff1xrEYB0HisG40rKfVsE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738130282; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GHNG3adl692Cf6SW4BBKbp5ahd9TK8YGHsz/NZaGyZo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jt1jmuTxYCGpyjwLtY+RT5XgCd5xwz8P7trnsez3ErlIY4WSOrEsPpeHTEkhDKIghWgLbWOk8KdyTh6Nrx9wux2eaGx6JfmiPbhRdY1MSXeLoHkLICIcrCcJdoZ/x2JeekZiuMrKtG3QI550Y8gIoY4N53Hj55YFSr3n/HSSMw4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=dR0n0Oe9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="dR0n0Oe9" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=p0taJwY+HtXBJGJLPETjY7zF7GHiL0ers9a6T8lh+FU=; b=dR0n0Oe9TkxRhjIChyaIeSFseS xNavW3VBvt39wQ2UIuH3n3oqFHTMjqxhb1XKOJk8hBqdprQ+BGms+tteVJ/uLfHj6S8pblbPSqJQS rHdotVzFKt21jnE1x2aXaCXgFAZDbi9kxuMdYLATTmXV1TyGpFSx23YKMH+mH75K06L8KFM/XUeiA JrGmlJNMVX68d1b1t+NVon2clbCf5uDGdR+mY35PMcx2EZduofroh/c7aaGvEtXZEUjV0NCLkPpOc FEe25Yf8aoToF+krknNFF8EemkS7SUiQHK90+vAoCDkuucIF7Mk0hayjNR5Px+yTSSvO83faLOJqZ 6BzFXDeQ==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1td15M-00000006NVT-27Zt; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:58:00 +0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 21:58:00 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] iomap: advance the iter directly on unshare range Message-ID: References: <20250122133434.535192-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20250122133434.535192-7-bfoster@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 08:57:27AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > And the analogous change in the next patch for zero range (unwritten && > !range_dirty) as well. > > Finally, I'm still working through converting the rest of the ops to use > iomap_iter_advance(), but I was thinking about renaming iter.processed > to iter.status as a final step. Thoughts on a rename in general or on > the actual name? Yeah, having a processed with either a count or status has proven to not be the greatest design ever, and once that is gone picking a better name is a good idea. status sounds fine. The variables tend to be name error or err, maybe that's a little better than status? I don't really care strongly either way.